Greetings. Today the ATP 250 events in Metz and St. Petersburg were concluded and there were two first-time winners in Lucas Pouille and Alexander Zverev. Pouille defeated Thiem 7-6(5), 6-2 while Zverev defeated the US Open champ Wawrinka 6-2, 3-6, 7-5.

These two are the most promising youngsters on the ATP currently in my view and I therefore expect them to win many more titles. Pouille is 22 years old and will climb from 18th to 16th in the rankings after his win while Zverev is only 19 years old and will climb from 27th to 24th in the rankings.

Pouille climbed from 78th at the start of 2016 to his current ranking while Zverev climbed from 83rd. For both of them, this has to be seen as a breakthrough season especially with their maiden titles this week.

Pouille has done better because he made two slam quarterfinals at Wimbledon and the US Open while Zverev made two slam third rounds at the French Open and Wimbledon. But Zverev is the younger of the two and titles among teenagers are a rarity these days.

After every post during a tournament, I will select the match for which you can make a prediction and post a link to this page. Then you must make your prediction in the comment selection below. Once the match that I selected begins predictions will close and I will accept no more. Then once the match is over I will calculate the results and adjust the rankings. The rankings will always be displayed on my blog and once the tournament is over I will announce the winner.

283 Comments

Comment navigation

//

As you can see Roger did decide to play Rome in the end, as he said after he lost in Madrid that he wasn’t yet sure if he would. I’m glad to see he did decide to play. It would have been strange if he did not play after planning such a full clay court schedule and then hardly playing any matches before the French Open. He didn’t exactly get the easiest draw again. Here it is:

It had its moments…

//

As you can see Roger did decide to play Rome in the end, as he said after he lost in Madrid that he wasn’t yet sure if he would. I’m glad to see he did decide to play. It would have been strange if he did not play after planning such a full clay court schedule and then hardly playing any matches before the French Open. He didn’t exactly get the easiest draw again. Here it is:

It had its moments…

http://www.atpworldtour.com/share/event-draws.aspx?year=2014&eventid=5014&draw=ms

Hi folks. Long time no post. It’s been a three week break but could have been twice that long had Roger decided to skip Shanghai. I think the North-American hard court season and Davis Cup took a lot out of Roger, but as long as he doesn’t play Paris I don’t see it being a problem. I think after what happened at the US Open Roger is not satisfied and he is still pushing hard for something better. And of course we as fans are very grateful that Roger is back. It is good timing for me too as for once the tennis is in my time zone being in Thailand, and the school holiday just started here so I hope Roger can do well in Shanghai. It won’t be easy though. Roger has a pretty decent draw up until the quarters, but then he could run into Nishikori who comes off a US Open final and back-to-back tournament wins in Kuala Lumpur and Tokyo. Clearly Nishikori is on a very impressive run.

Just to get back to last week quickly, Nishikori beat Raonic in a close encounter in the Tokyo final while Djokovic destroyed Berdych 6-0, 6-2. Nishikori looks to be the most promising young player right now although Thiem is coming up fast. As for Djokovic he is in devastating form and cemented himself as the king of Asia by remaining unbeaten in Beijing in five tournaments. Against Berdych he was serving for the double bagel at 6-0 and 5-0 but then played a poor game. Did he feel sorry for Berdych? Who knows but to me it’s a shame that he missed out on a very rare opportunity to bagel a player in a final, and more so since it was Berdych. And not necessarily because Berdych is always in the zone against Roger. I just don’t like Berdych very much. Back to the Shanghai draw and Roger will play his first match on Wednesday against the winner of Mayer and wild card Wu.

The most popular male tennis player in China swamped on arrival

Hi folks. I hope you are feeling better after reading my last post and that you realize by now that Roger’s loss is not the end of the world. I received a comment a couple of days ago asking me what I thought about Roger changing his racquet and strings, because it was something Brad Gilbert said Roger should consider. That got me thinking. Ever since Roger passed his prime people have always been coming up with changes Roger should make after a disappointing loss. And then when things are going well again they have nothing to say. Well that was just silly. Losses are a natural part of tennis, and it doesn’t always call for a change. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t place for change, which is why I’m making this post. Roger just lost for the first time in 9 years before the quarter finals of a slam. If there was ever a time to make a change it is probably now.

When things weren’t really going well for Roger he hired Paul Annacone, and it has been a successful partnership. That was a pretty big change and it paid off. I’ve been thinking about this equipment change idea as well as a different fitness routine which would focus on strengthening the upper body. Lets face it. The game has become very physical and Roger is often getting overpowered. Berdych is one player who routinely overpowers Roger and in recent times Murray overpowered Roger in Melbourne. Nadal also overpowers Roger with brute strength. There are more examples I’m sure, but I just named a few off the top of my head. Roger has never been the biggest hitter in the game. But he had more than enough power in his prime to keep any big hitter at bay. What made him such a tough opponent is that he stood on the base line and took the ball on the rise.

He played very fast and his opponents were under constant pressure. It was just another level from what they were used to, which is why Roger almost never lost in his prime. It was only when Nadal showed up and used brute strength and unbelievable speed, as well as a match up advantage that Roger’s aura was infiltrated. Roger was as close to perfect as a player could come, and it took something extraordinary to make him vulnerable. Ever since then Roger became slowly but surely more vulnerable. The other players that started beating him more regularly were the power hitters like Berdych, Soderling, and Tsonga. Del Potro also beat him in the US Open final. Roger hasn’t always struggled with these guys. He does hold winning head-to-heads over all of them, and pretty convincing ones too. It’s not just these guys though.

Murray and Nadal are both strong guys and I have seen them both overpower Roger. It is just that extra upper body strength that they have. Just good old muscle. I think if Roger is going to make any changes from here on one of them would have to be strengthening his upper body. You can see strengthening his upper body was never really a priority for Roger because he is pretty skinny up there. That is not to say he is weak in the upper body. Of course he did some work there, but because he was such a natural talent and great timer of the ball he didn’t strengthen it as much as Nadal or Murray for instance. These guys can really muscle the ball. I’m not saying Roger should muscle the ball. It’s not how he plays. He plays with talent and timing. But strengthening the upper body could just give him that little extra to be able to compete better with these guys.

The other thing is the equipment. Roger plays with a Wilson BLX Pro Staff 90 racquet which you can view here. The 90 stands for the racquet head size, which is 90 square inches. That is pretty small folks. This is not a racquet I would ever recommend for a club player. I played with one of the first Head Prestige frames early on as a player and it had a 90 sq in head as well. The sweet spot is small and it is not easy to play with. Later on I switched to the 98 sq in Head Prestige, and played with it until the end. Check out this article in the New York Times about the racquets of the top 3 men. It was written back in 2011 but as far as racquets go the top 3 hasn’t changed much at all. It’s a very interesting article which you should read. What is so interesting is that Roger, Nadal, and Djokovic all have a different playing style, and therefor each uses a different racquet tailored to their specific needs.

Well what an interesting first day of the Davis Cup final that was. A couple of weeks ago this is the opposite of what you would have expected to happen. Stan confidently disposes of Tsonga 6-1, 3-6, 6-3, 6-2 in the opening singles and then Roger gets straight setted 6-1, 6-4, 6-3 by Monfils. It seems like Roger and Stan can’t play well for the Swiss at the same time. Of course Roger’s back injury had a big role to play in his loss to Monfils, but given how Monfils played he may have lost anyway. The French have the advantage of playing at home and being able to train on clay while Roger and Stan was still playing in London. And of course with R0ger’s injury he couldn’t train the way he wanted to. He said after that match that the injury didn’t bother him on his ground strokes(did it both him on his serve?) but the fact that he couldn’t start training earlier on clay was a problem for him.

And lets face it Roger’s clay form hasn’t exactly been the greatest in the last couple of years. So I think the French made the right decision to play on clay, even though Stan is adapting very well. You gotta hand it to Stan. He really stepped up when he was needed. Who’s the cry baby now? Haha. That was maybe the best Stan has played since the Australian Open this year. My connection was very poor but his ground strokes was lethal and he just dominated Tsonga from the base line. When Stan plays like that he is a joy to watch and almost impossible to beat. Monfils was in similar form though. At least my connection was good for Roger match, only to see him getting blasted off the court in straight sets! It wasn’t much of a contest. Monfils was by far the superior player. He was clearly feeding off the energy of the crowd and afterwards said he played one of the three best matches of his life.

Who’s the cry baby now?

Monfils was ripping winners from all over the place and his serve was huge too. Roger on the other hand was really struggling. He just looked altogether unimpressive and clay has now become by far his worst surface, whereas before it was just his worst surface.Clearly it didn’t help that he got injured in London and the fact that he couldn’t hit the clay courts as soon as he was finished there, but like I said he may have lost anyway. That is just how well Monfils played. And then of course having the home crowd on his side helps a lot. The French are not known for being mentally the strongest players, but they are an altogether different cup of tea when they play at home. With the home support they all of a sudden seem almost invincible. So the home advantage for the French is definitely big here. Even if Roger was 100% fit this would have been a challenging tie.

Howdy, folks. A lot of discussions and entertainment on my blog as usual so thanks for that. Next week is the inaugural tournament for Istanbul and today the draw was released. Roger is, of course, the top seed while his clone Dimitrov is the second seed. This is probably the weakest ATP 250 I have ever laid my eyes upon, and I’m 100% serious when I say that. I can’t remember seeing a weaker draw. I guess they offered Roger 100% of the appearance fees available while Dimitrov did it just to play in the same event as Roger.

That is how desperate he is to be like Roger and why he is still losing 6-3, 6-1 to Monfils in Monte Carlo. The third seed in Istanbul is Cuevas while Giraldo is the fourth seed, so really there is not much room for error for Roger here. Anything less than a title would be a failure if we are being honest. After what happened in Monte Carlo it is a good opportunity to set the record straight because it is a weak event and a title is a title. But like I said the flip side of that is that he has to win it.

Even if he loses in the final it would look like another failure. There was quite a lot expected of Roger after winning Dubai and making the Indian Wells final. The Monte Carlo loss was a setback, not necessarily because Roger lost but the way he lost. Losing in straight sets to Monfils after being 5-3 up in the second set tie-break with a serve to come reminded of the Roger that lost in Melbourne to Seppi. If he wins Istanbul then that would kind of cancel out the loss in Monte Carlo and he can go to Madrid and Rome with a clean slate.

As for Barcelona today Nishikori destroyed Klizan 6-1, 6-2 who is a player I happen to have a lot of respect for. I also watched that match and Nishikori was on fire. He will play Andujar in the final who had a terrific 7-6(6), 6-3 win over Ferrer today. I watched some of that match too and Andujar did incredibly well to come back from 3-6 in the tie-break, and that after he lost his serve when serving for the first set at 6-5. So really a terrific mental effort from a player with a great attitude and that is always good to see.

// Hi, folks. With 2015 drawing to a close it is once again time to look back at what happened in tennis this year. No doubt it’s been a one-man show aside from Wawrinka who won his second slam at the French Open with a brilliant display of offensive tennis.For me who became a serious Djokovic fan this year it has been my favorite tennis season as a tennis fan yet. For Fedfans, it’s been a mixed year because although Federer had his best season since 2012 he lost in two more slam finals to Djokovic and still couldn’t clinch #18.As for Nadal fans, it has been a very difficult year but it ended well for them because there is no doubt now that Nadal is back even though there hasn’t been any progress for him in solving the Djokovic puzzle.Finally, like Federer, Murray had a very consistent year but could not break through again on the big stage. It’s just very hard to do with someone as dominant as Djokovic around which puts some perspective over what Wawrinka achieved.

I already made posts where I emphasized the significance of Djokovic’s personal slam which he completed this year at the French Open but I haven’t dedicated a post to that specifically and I think it is due.

And the reason I think it is due is because of the lack of attention it received in the mainstream media. One reason it did not receive the attention it deserved in the mainstream media is because Federer and Nadal are their favorites and the fact that Djokovic achieved something neither of them ever could, was upsetting to the mainstream ‘pundits’.

Djokovic is viewed as the outsider because he is from Serbia and because he is a serious threat to Federer and Nadal. Of course, there isn’t any legitimate reason for him not getting the recognition he deserves.

It is simply because of bias and because the mainstream western media is one of the worst evils this world has ever seen. That goes for all things, not just tennis. It is also because the mainstream media are not true tennis fans.

That’s right. I am that excited about this young player called Dominic Thiem. Having already broken into the top 40 in the world at the age of 20 his future is bright indeed. He is currently 21 years old and with his result in Miami he has already risen from #52 to #43 in the rankings. If he defeats Murray in the quarter finals he will rise to a personal best of #34 in the rankings(previous best #36). This guy is the real deal folks. He possesses everything needed to become great. I know it is early days but he has a fantastic attitude which is the most important thing. I have already referred to his attitude in my last post and yesterday after he defeated Anderson, Murray was asked about his next match with Thiem.

Murray responded that he practiced with Thiem before and that the guy is extremely respectful, a hard worker, and has a great attitude. I have also noticed that he is very humble, which goes hand-in-hand with what Murray said about him being extremely respectful. To me that is probably the most important thing. Kyrgios and Coric are going to be great players too but they are too cocky for my liking. I still like them but I just like Thiem much more. And then there is that epic one-handed backhand compared to Kyrgios and Coric who have two-handed backhands. So I don’t know about you, but my requirements for being a fan of a player is their attitude and an attractive playing style. Of course Roger have both of those which is why I am such a big fan.

But if Roger does have a flaw if would have to be that he sometimes appear arrogant and that he can fall apart mentally at the end of long matches. As far as those go I don’t see Thiem having those problems. I am not trying to say in any way that Thiem can be better than Roger or as a good as him. I am merely saying I like his attitude and his game, and I know how quickly Fedfans get ideas. But this is Ultimate Tennis now so need for me to worry about that anymore. Roger is still pretty much the ultimate tennis player for me. And Thiem’s game is actually quite different as he has long loopy strokes with a lot of topspin on them, not unlike Nadal. He is definitely not a moonballer like Nadal though.

He is an attacking base liner. He also has a fairly big serve. Probably around the same pace as Roger’s. He doesn’t have the hands Roger has(nobody does) but he has good touch and is a good shot maker. He is also the kind of guy who has it all but he stands quite far behind the base line and takes big cuts at the ball. Although he potentially has some limitations to his game he seems quite complete at the same time. For me it is a fresh change up from Roger’s game anyway because like I said he doesn’t stand as close to the base line as Roger, but he takes bigger cuts at the ball and has bigger swings. He is a bit more like Stan in that sense. He is more a powerful base liner with a good serve who prefers the base line.

I think he’d be a great clay court and hard court player. Probably grass or indoor courts won’t compliment his game very well. But like I said he has a complete game that can adjust to any surface. But yeah his very likable personality and very likable one-handed backhand makes me an instant fan. He can really hit that backhand with unreal power. Harder than Stan even. In a rally against Mannarino yesterday deep in the third set he blasted three backhands hard and deep to Mannarino’s forehand until Mannarino couldn’t handle the pace anymore and made an unforced error. Just unreal hitting. That shot is just a beauty to behold. And he hit some good touch shots too. I remember one particular drop shot in the third set as well which Mannarino could not reach.

First of all, before some people get their knickers in a twist because I often talk about the GOAT, let me make it clear that I always said I don’t really believe in a GOAT but that I liked the debate and speculation.

Now I’m not even sure about that part anymore. Why? Because it has become clearer than ever to me that the GOAT argument is used as a phony marketing tool and that there are far too many variables to determine a GOAT, some of which I will look at in this post. Other variables have also become apparent to me at this Wimbledon like the biased scheduling and the influence of the media which is considerable.

But let’s start with the following:

Click image to enlarge